From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guaranty Natl. Ins. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 18, 1992
981 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1992)

Summary

noting that a true excess policy "is issued in anticipation of the existence of the underlying [primary] policy and is priced in the belief that the excess carrier will not have to provide a defense"

Summary of this case from Frankenmuth Mut v. Continental

Opinion

No. 91-35836.

Argued and Submitted October 7, 1992.

Decided December 18, 1992.

Gary M. Zadick, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick Slovak, Great Falls, MT, for defendant-appellant.

Kenneth R. Dyrud, and Jeannie Young, Church, Harris, Johnson Williams, Great Falls, MT, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

Before: POOLE, FERNANDEZ, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.


The decision of the district court reported at 758 F. Supp. 1394 (D.Mont. 1991) is affirmed, with this limitation.

One of the parties to the case in the district court was Harbor Insurance Company, which had issued a true excess insurance policy. In this setting, a true excess policy is one which is specifically intended to only come into play when the limits of the underlying coverage are exhausted. It is issued in anticipation of the existence of the underlying policy and is priced in the belief that the excess carrier will not have to provide a defense. See Hartford Accident Indem. Co. v. Continental Nat'l Am. Ins. Cos., 861 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir. 1989) ("an excess insurer predicates the premiums it charges upon the obligations that it and the primary insurer assume, including the primary insurer's obligation to defend all suits until exhaustion of its liability limits").

The dispute resolved by the district court here was between two carriers which had each issued a "primary" insurance policy. Due to the policy provisions involved, or the relationship among the parties to the accident, the coverage of one of the policies had become "excess" to the coverage afforded by the other, or what could be called "excess by coincidence."

In a case involving a true excess insurance policy, the equitable factors favoring proration of costs of defense would not, or may not, be present. The district court's decision here involved the duty to contribute to defense costs of an insurance company which had issued an insurance policy which was excess by coincidence, and it is that decision which we affirm today.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Guaranty Natl. Ins. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 18, 1992
981 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1992)

noting that a true excess policy "is issued in anticipation of the existence of the underlying [primary] policy and is priced in the belief that the excess carrier will not have to provide a defense"

Summary of this case from Frankenmuth Mut v. Continental
Case details for

Guaranty Natl. Ins. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:GUARANTY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 18, 1992

Citations

981 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

Texas Employers v. Underwriting Mem.

Where, as in this case, an insured purchases one policy specifically as primary coverage and another as…

Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Western World Ins. Co.

Policies that are excess by coincidence, conversely, do not require the policyholder to obtain additional…